|
Correspondence with Pat Wyman (9/98-11/98)
[To post a comment about this dialogue at the Community Forum
message board, click here]
September 15, 1998 Dear John,
I was very interested in your critique of my work and much intrigued by the research you have done on the Enneagram. I personally think that we are more in agreement than disagreement but I will leave that to you to decide.
You are correct in noting that I have not done any empirical research to back my position. For that reason, I use the term 'model of therapy' rather than theory. I am a clinician. I am focused on working with my clients and have no interest in doing research. As an INFJ, research is not what I do best and I would resent the time it would take from my primary work. In writing about my model of therapy, it has been my hope that others who excel in research would be interested enough to delve into the project and do the empirical work
that is needed. For myself, I am merely reporting what I see consistently and without fail in the clinical setting.
The first misunderstanding or mis-communication I would like to clear up is with regard to shadow. I do not equate the defense system nor the Enneagram with the Jungian concept of shadow. In my mind, they are separate entities although they may appear under similar conditions. I think that if we can agree on this separation then your position and mine become much closer and we can have a both/and situation. You mention that all the examples I submitted in my Enneagram Monthly articles had MBTI and Enneagram types that were in conflict implying, as I understand it, that I chose those to illustrate
that the Enneagram and shadow are similar. The cases were chosen to illustrate certain points and I knew that most of them were unusual combinations. But as I have already stated, they were not chosen to equate Enneagram and shadow. The purpose of my articles was to show how the MBTI and the Enneagram can be used in affective therapy, not to imply any correlation, or lack thereof, of MBTI and Enneagram types. Furthermore, not all the cases were unusual types. I discussed an ISTJ-1, an ENFP-4 and an ESFJ-6. At the recent Denver Enneagram Conference, I played taped interviews with an ENFJ-7, an ESFJ-1 and an ENTJ-1. My article in the current Journal of Psychological
Type addresses the concept of Enneagram and shadow and the point that some types such as the INTP-5 or ISTJ-1 are more compatible combinations than some of the more unusual cases I have cited in my Enneagram Monthly articles. I concur that Enneagram type does not characteristically conflict with MBTI type. I know that Tom Flautt and John Richards are doing some interesting work in tracking the frequency and their findings agree with what I observe in my practice. In my articles, I was illustrating that,
when there is a conflict between MBTI and Enneagram, it causes even more psychological problems in the development of the individual.
As stated, I have certainly noticed in my own practice that some combinations of the two types are more prevalent than others. But again, I am not interested in doing the research and knew that it would be only a matter of time before someone else did. I would be very interested in seeing the results of your work. I have found that clients who have very different MBTI and Enneagram types can more easily recognize when they have moved from the Core Self to the Defense System. Those who have more similar MBTI and Enneagram types have a greater need for discernment in determining when they have moved into a defended position.
My main point is that the two systems of typing measures parts of the personality that have different roles. I am not the only person to link the Enneagram to the Defense System. People such as Helen Palmer; Tom Condon; Kathy Hurley and Ted Dobson and others allude to the Enneagram as a block of some kind to better self-understanding. I am in a position, as a clinician, to see it operational and I am reporting what I consistently see. With each and every client I see the locus of control of the system in the Enneagram part of
personality before therapy begins. The MBTI traits are used in support of the defense system of the Enneagram. At the conclusion of therapy, the control is in the MBTI with some of the traits of the Enneagram used to support the Core Self.
I wanted to clear up two minor points as well. One, I do not use a written instrument to ascertain an individual's Enneagram type as I do no believe there are any on the market that are accurate enough to suite me. I am in agreement with Helen Palmer in that the Enneagram was developed in the oral tradition and is best utilized that way. Secondly, I try not to identify a person as an Enneagram number, such as identifying Kory as an 8. I prefer to note that the person is defended as an 8. I am certain that I made inadvertent slips in this area on occasion but watching my own language around this point helps to
clarify my position to those with whom I am communicating.
I am pleased that you found my articles of interest and thought-provoking. I would welcome the opportunity to read about your work.
Sincerely,
Pat Wyman
September 28, 1998Dear Pat,
Yes, insofar as you believe that 'some combinations of [enneagram and mbti] types are more prevalent than others', and that 'Enneagram type does not CHARACTERISTICALLY conflict with MBTI type', we probably are in more agreement than disagreement. Had your work not been presented in the Enneagram Monthly as evidence of the contrary we would have presumed this to be your position. But in the absence of any objection, on your part, to the way in which your work was being cited in support of the dictum, 'don't correlate', we could only conclude that you believed that the inferences that others were drawing from your work, and widely disseminating, were legitimate.
To help clarify this matter I would like to make your letter available at the 'Enneagram and MBTI Journal', as a reply to my article on your theory. Pat and I would also like to invite you to submit a paper on how your model works with individuals who have combinations of Enneagram and MBTI types that are amongst the most frequent ones. Statistically speaking, this group would include 12 of the 16 combinations that she and I originally identified as 'prototypical' combinations, back in early 1996 - the E(S/N)FJ-2, the ESTP-3, the I(N/S)TP-5, the E(S/N)TJ-8, the I(N/S)FP-9, the INFJ-4, the IS(F/T)J-6, and the J-1s.
We appreciate the fact that you have no interest in doing formal research, and applaud your choice. People should feel free to follow their bliss in making a contribution. But to a certain extent we all do theory-creation and empirical observation. After all, a 'theory' is really nothing more than an 'hypothesis propounded in order to account for known facts'. We may prefer to think of this activity as 'model-building' in contrast to 'theorizing', and that's fine. But the hypotheses that we arrive at in this way are equally subject to critical scrutiny and empirical confirmation or discomformation. And this remains true whether theories are explicitly formulated 'conscious' hypotheses (like our model, which seeks to begin to explain the complex relationship between enneagram and MBTI type), or more simple tacit assumptions about the 'way things work' (e.g., the belief 'that any enneagram type can be any mbti type').
We are a bit perplexed by your statement that in writing about your model in the Enneagram Monthly, you were not terribly concerned about doing the necessary research because you 'knew it would be only a matter of time before someone else did'. What we find confusing is that significant research and theoretical discussions about the meaning of research findings had already been done, and published - in the Enneagram Monthly, no less - before your articles began to appear there. More than adequate statistical evidence already existed in support of the simple assertion that certain combinations of Enneagram and MBTI type were more common than others. And, indeed, in twelve or thirteen out of sixteen cases, the type combinations that were most highly correlated statistically in the EM survey were predicted by the theory that Pat and I had formulated, not on the basis of statistical evidence, I might add, but purely on the basis of 'formal' considerations having to do with the nature of the MBTI and the Enneagram. In the context of the 1996 Enneagram Monthly Enneagram/MBTI reader survey, this material was shared, discussed, and debated. The study that Richards and Flautt subsequently conducted basically replicated the statistical findings of the earlier Enneagram Monthly survey - as we have demonstrated in detail, at our web site.
I'd also like to point out that in discussing your theory I was not using the word 'shadow' exclusively in a strictly Jungian sense of the word. It is often used in personality theory to refer to an MBTI type diametrically opposed to another MBTI type. In his book, Sixteen Types, for instance, Pederson speaks of the INFP as the 'shadow' of the ESTJ. Your mention of the INFJ-3 conjures up a similar picture. Insofar as the ES type could reasonably be taken as the Jungian type most representative of Three, and ES and IN are diametrically opposed Jungian types, one might say that Enneagram type 3 has a 'shadow' relationship to the INFJ. By using the word 'shadow' in this context I was trying to point out that the 'part' of the individual which you are admittedly identifying as '3' is a quite different part than the part that is identified as 'IN', having many diametrically opposed qualities. I was furthermore trying to make the point that on the basis of good statistical data one can conclude that it is not usually the case that the Enneagram and MBTI types in an individual stand in this kind of (shadow) relationship to each other.
We are well aware of the fact that many enneagram practitioners and theoreticians have alluded to how identification with an Enneagram type might become a 'block' to the individual's self-realization. This approach to the concept and role of 'personality' is slightly different from the approach that most MBTI practitioners have. The difference has historical roots in the divergent philosophical/meta-psychological positions that Jung and Gurdjieff/Ouspensky respectively took. Nevertheless, many contemporary Enneagram practitioners have chosen to take a more neutral position than their eminent predecessors with respect to this debate, and have decided not to construe 'personality' as purely a negative thing. Some, ourselves included, have accordingly chosen to notice what is good and positive and healthy, and yes - even 'essential' - about each Enneagram personality type.
And this is where you and we seem to have our biggest differences. You say that you are reluctant to identify the 'whole' person as a particular Enneagram type; we are not. And you seem to want to reserve the Enneagram type-label exclusively for identifying how that individual 'is defended', whereas we are equally interested in the 'enlightened' qualites associated with each type (please see '9 Qualities of the Enlightened Being', 1995, at our site). It is your prerogative to do this, of course, but we would like to point out to you that others have taken a very different path in using the Enneagram. Some individuals with whom we have spoken seem to believe that your choice to associate the MBTI with what is good, 'core', and whole about the individual, while associating the Enneagram with the unhealthy portion, may say more about an unspoken bias on your part in favor of the MBTI than it does about either the nature of the Enneagram, the MBTI, or their relationship.
These minor differences aside, I would like to again say that both Pat and I appreciate the creative and productive use that you have made of both tools in your therapeutic work. We are particularly impressed by your observation that '... clients who have very different MBTI and Enneagram types can more easily recognize when they have moved from the Core Self to the Defense System. Those who have more similar MBTI and Enneagram types have a greater need for discernment in determining when they have moved into a defended position' and would like to hear more about this aspect of your work. It seems to be an hypothesis that is both interesting and testable, and one that could lead to the discovery of further differences between those individuals who have uncommon Enneagram-MBTI combinations and those who are more typical in this respect.
Has your work led you to any conclusions about why some individuals have compatible Enneagram and MBTI types and others don't? We think that this is an important question and your work seems to suggest that you might have an explanation for this.
We are happy to share the results of our work with you. Approximately a year ago we made the choice to use the internet as our preferred mode for making writings available, and for reaching out to others for the purpose of networking and dialogue. At our web site, 'The Enneagram and the MBTI', there are dozens of papers on this subject, written by ourselves and others over the course of the last five years. These papers are all carefully electronically cross-referenced for the convenience of the reader, who might otherwise have difficulty keeping track of all of the statistical tables and intentionally interwoven discussions. The site can be found at "http://tap3x.net/EMBTI", and is free of charge. All of the papers there can be downloaded, and/or printed for off-line reading. Having made the choice to present our work electronically, we don't keep hard copy, and hence don't have any on hand to send you.
Best wishes,
John Fudjack
October 24, 1998Dear John,
Thank you for your letter of October 6. Communication is an interesting thing. I am
always fascinated when I think I am being perfectly clear and the receiver hears
something different.
Because I am foremost a clinician and not a researcher, I am foremost interested in
efficacy. This is doubly true because I am a Three. Whether the MBTI and the Enneagram
correlate or not is interesting to me but not vital nor where I choose to direct my
efforts. I work with clients and want to know what will help them get where they want to
go 'fastest and bestest'. So it is not with intention that I have found myself in this
discussion of correlation or no correlation. I have Tom Flautt's frequency table and agree
with most of what he and John Richards are reporting. I have not had access to your work
but do not doubt the same would be true.
I would be happy to write a piece for you explaining how my model works with those
who have more common MBTI/Enneagram combinations. I see a different frequency than you
list: ISTJ-1 and ENFP-7, for instance, but I can write about any of the combinations
you have listed because the model applies in the same way as it would to uncommon
combinations. Meanwhile, you might find that my recent article in the current issue of
the Journal of Psychological Type (Volume 46) addresses some of your questions. I also have some discussion on shadow in that article.
With regard to my 3 being rather like shadow to my INFJ, I am enclosing a work-up of
INFJ-3 so you can see that, although there are conflicting traits, there are quite a few
that support each other as well. The part of the 3 and the INFJ that I personally find
most in conflict are the Introvert and the Performer.
In re-reading my letter to you where I state I 'knew it would be only a matter of
time before someone else did the research', I made too large a leap between sentences. I
apologize for the misunderstanding. In my mind, I was referring to any research around
my own model. I was aware that several people have been doing research on correlation.
I have not attempted to substantiate my own model much less the work on correlation, other than to keep a record of my clients' types. I submitted this data on about
350 people to John Richards over a year ago so I was well aware there was research being
conducted. If you are interested, I would be happy to share my data with you as well.
I regret that I have not seen your web site because I am one of the few remaining
individuals not on the Internet. I have not figured out where I could find time to 'surf
the net' since I can't seem to find time to read a newspaper. However, I will do my best
to have someone download your information to me.
If I left you with the opinion that I see the Enneagram as negative, I regret that as
well. I see it as essential to emotional survival. It is not bad or good, it just is.
When you say my referring to the MBTI as representing the Core Self and the Enneagram
as the Defense System is indicative of a bias on my part in favor of the MBTI, you are
implying that I favor the MBTI which I do not. Both these systems are of equal
importance, simply different roles. When the locus of control of the individual
is resting in the Enneagram, I see it as indicative that the person is leading a very
defended life-style and is not in touch with the Core Self. At the end of therapy,
it is very apparent that control rests in the MBTI part of personality. I do not orchestrate this nor could I if I wanted to. I am simply reporting what I see consistently
in each and every client. Not only do I see the shift of control from Enneagram to MBTI
over the course of therapy, I also see it more dramatically in the course of a session.
If a client has been emotionally triggered, the Enneagram traits dominate the personality
and govern world-view, decision-making, coping strategies, etc. By doing emotional
work around the triggering event, control is restored to the Core Self, with the resulting
peace and serenity, within a matter of minutes.
I do concur that as an individual grows or becomes more 'enlightened', there is more
evidence of the higher qualities of the Enneagram type and an incorporation of some of the
traits of the growth point. I see Enneagram traits, then, enriching the Core Self, adding
more facets to personality. However, this just leads us to a further discussion of my model which is unnecessary. It is not essential that we agree, just that we can put out our
findings in the hope that it will help others and advance the understanding of how
personality works.
I do not have an answer as to why some individuals have compatible Enneagram and MBTI types and others don't. When I began, I thought it was a roll of the dice, but the more
people I worked with, the more I saw frequency of certain combinations. I think this
is a very important and very interesting question and would value any input from anyone. As an INFJ, I am fascinated by how people work and why. As an NF seeking harmony, I fervently
hope we can be of help in some way to each other's work. I also hope there will be
an opportunity for an 'in person' discussion.
Best Wishes,
Pat Wyman
This chart reproduces the one that Pat enclosed -
| Corresponding Oppositional Traits | Corresponding Compatible Traits |
| INFJ | E3 | | INFJ | E3 |
| A. | Accepting | Intolerant of incompetence | 1. | Achiever | Achiever |
| B. | Aware of others' feelings | Uses others to achieve success | 2. | Becomes immobilized by hostility | Slides to 9: lethargy |
| C. | Bonds deeply with children | Problems With intimacy | 3. | Can be stubborn | Assertive |
| D. | Caring, helping, warm | Considers a relationship a job | 4. | Focused, concentrates | Focused, driven |
| E. | Compassionate | Disconnected from feelings | 5. | Trouble with criticism | Hates criticism |
| F. | Depth | Image | 6. | Decisive | Decisive |
| G. | Devoted | Considers a relationship a job | 7. | Diligent | Busy/doer |
| H. | Good people skills | Uses people to reach success | 8. | Eloquent | Able to package and re-package |
| I. | Idealizes love;
loves intensely | Considers a relationship a job | 9. | Enthusiastic | Enthusiastic |
| J. | Inner ideals | Image | 10. | Future oriented | Future oriented |
| K. | Integrity | Can compromise values | 11. | Hard to get to know | Not interested in depth, just image |
| L. | Interested in academics | Interested in image and success | 12. | Inspires and motivates others | Motivates |
| M. | Leads from behind the scenes | Team leader | 13. | Keeps, saves things | Accumulates money, assets, possessions |
| N. | Listens | Talks | 14. | Keeps values hidden to maintain harmony | Can compromise values to win acceptance |
| O. | Finds money management difficult | Accumulates money | 15. | Good with language | Good communicator |
| P. | Non-assertive | Assertive | 16. | Organized | Organized |
| Q. | Non-ostentatious | Material worth and possessions important | 17. | Perseveres | Focused, driven |
| R. | Not good at politics | Social connections and credentials important | 18. | Pleases others | Other-directed |
| S. | Non-ostentatious | Status and prestige important | 19. | Sees possibilities | Visionary |
| T. | Perfectionist | End justifies the means | 20. | Prefers measurable goals | Prefers measurable goals |
| U. | Private | No private life | 21. | Team player | Team leader |
| V. | Quiet | Talks | 22. | Understand people and how they work | Manipulates |
| W. | Reserved | Identifies with persona, role | 23. | Visionary | Visionary |
| X. | Rich inner life | No private life | 24. | Writer | Good communicator |
| Y. | Sensitive and vulnerable | Disconnected from feelings | 25. | Hard-working | Workaholic |
| Z. | Values are important | Can compromise values | | | |
| AA. | Works to make visions a reality | Works for success | | | |
| BB. | Works must be meaningful and people-oriented | Works must bring prestige and professionalism | | | |
| CC. | Loves intensely | Problems with commitment | | | |
September 28, 1998
Dear Pat,
I would like to see the data that you mention. Thank you for being willing to share it
with us and with those who visit our web site. Pat and I both eagerly await an article from you on the relationship between the Enneagram and the MBTI. We would personally be most interested in a piece contrasting how your model works with individuals who have what you call 'compatible' MBTI and Enneagram types and those who do not - but the topic is best left up to you to decide.
You are right, by the way, to point to the ENFP-7 as a high frequency combination. Although Pat and I originally identified the ENFP as one of the prototypes for 7, and surely recognize it as one of the highest frequency combinations of all, I somehow overlooked mentioning it in the list I sent you! It is also true that the ISTJ-1 is another frequent combination, and I did refer to it in my letter to you, under the rubric 'all J types and Enneagram Ones'. Pat and I chose not to single the ISTJ out as 'prototypical' of the group that scores as 'E1', instead taking 'all J-types' as prototypes - for reasons explained in our original article.
I have seen your recent article in the JPT. It's a nice piece - well written and consistent with what you say elsewhere. As far as I can see, however, it does not address some of those issues in which I am particularly interested - regarding the implications that your model has for understanding the Enneagram, the MBTI, and their relationship. I think that this may be because we are talking at somewhat different levels of abstraction. You are, quite understandably, interested primarily in describing how you use the two systems in your therapeutic practice, and appear to be quite happy to be able to present a 'model' which might shed some light on why you do things the way you do. In the language of philosophy of science, you are invoking a model for the purpose of explaining a practice. You are, admittedly, not especially concerned with trying to defend that model or understand its impact on issues that you are not directly concerned with - ie, the correlation between Enneagram and MBTI type. My interest, on the other hand, is in exploring and analysing the model itself - how you EXPLAIN what you do -
for reasons I will explain below. I am quite willing, as I mentioned in my article on your practice and theory, to stipulate that WHAT you are doing is quite helpful and wonderful and creative!
Such 'models' - the MBTI, the Enneagram, your model for explaining your therapeutic practice, our model for attempting to understand the correlations between the two typologies - are sometimes alternately described as 'paradigms', a word which was originally coined with the intention of implying the presence of a complex phenomenon that is very similar to what we ordinarily mean the word 'culture'. A culture is a many faceted and complex thing. Likewise, every 'paradigm' not only has a set of theoretical assumptions that are complex and multi-level, it has other features unique to it - a special language in which its insights can best be communicated, specific methodologies associated with it, epistemologies that are peculiar to it, a group of 'exemplary' practitioners whose names become associated with it, and various 'issues' that become the Big Unanswered Questions in that paradigm and tend to absorb the interest of those working within the parameters it defines.
My point in invoking the concept of 'paradigm' here is in order to explain my interest, as a fellow INFJ, in 'theory'. For many years I have studied how theories are socially constructed, within specific 'disciplines' that are contained in larger communities that are embedded within cultures which have specific histories. As an INFJ I find it fascinating how rival 'visions' of reality become embodied in paradigms, and how
competing paradigms interface and interact with their rivals.
I am particularly interested in the 'vision' embodied in the Enneagram, the 'vision' embodied in the MBTI, and in their relationship. The model that you have invoked to explain what you do in therapy can be understood, to some extent, as a 'meta-model' attempting to bridge these two paradigms. It offers, even if only inadvertently, a frame-work in which one can be compared with the other, and a language with which that can be done. Your meta-model is itself subject to scrutiny with respect to all of the features of paradigms mentioned above, and some others that I have not mentioned. If one were to do this with any kind thoroughness it would require a close explicit look at the theoretical assumptions underlying your model, the language that you use, the methodologies associated with your model - all of the things mentioned above.
Understanding and evaluating a paradigm is not always just a simple matter of subjecting certain claims (ie, 'theories' that are held by practitioners of the paradigm) to empirical data ('facts'). It often also entails trying to understand how the features of the paradigm hang together - how the language and methodologies and issues and so forth interact, and
mutually support each other in describing the 'reality' peculiar to that model. One can seek to understand how the paradigm fares in relation to rival paradigms - models using other languages and/or methodologies, making alternate theoretical assumptions, or using different epistemologies. Or explore how slight shifts in one of these features can
generate an entirely new paradigm. In this spirit one might compare the Jungian paradigm with the Freudian, or with Gurdieff's, for the purpose of eeking from such comparisons deeper truths that hide in the liminal areas that exist at the interface BETWEEN such systems and can only be revealed by turning the spotlight on these boundary areas.
I am mentioning all of this here simply in order to explain that my interest in subjecting your model to the kind of this kind of analysis is not motivated by an attempt to condemn your work, or nit-pick about the words you use to describe it. Your model deserves the same kind of careful analysis and scrutiny as any of these others; to take it seriously is to subject it to this kind of process.
Consider, for example, the matter of the characteristic 'methodology' associated with a
given paradigm or model. What is the methodology associated with your model? Judging by
what you say, I'd submit that it is the 'therapeutic' method. You are primarily interested in 'doing' therapy. Although you are probably not personally uninterested in
spiritual growth, you probably don't spend quite as much time 'doing' meditation
or other so-called 'spiritual' practices, as I do. Although I am not uninterested or unfamiliar with the therapeutic approach, it is not a methodology that I use
frequently.
The point is that the primary practical methodologies with which you and I
respectively work bring different features of the Enneagram and the MBTI into relief for each of us. The 'defense mechanisms' which concern you don't stand out as prominent constructs or 'objects' in my world. It would never have occured to me to distinguish between the Enneagram and MBTI primarily in terms of such a concept. On the other hand, as I AM concerned with the practical application of the spiritual practices to which I have devoted many years, I do tend to see the two systems in spiritual terms - in terms of the light they can shed on what, for lack of a better term, I would call the 'buddha-nature' of individual human beings, their capacity for 'self-realization' or 'enlightenment'.
My model thus leads me in a somewhat different direction, and ultimately toward a different set of conclusions. From my experience I conclude that with the Enneagram one can more easily identify the nature of the 'enlightened' spiritual qualites intrinsically inherent in all individuals and explain how, when we alienate ourselves from these qualities, they tend to degenerate into spiritual 'possessions' to which we become attached in ways characteristic of Enneagram 'type'. The 16 MBTI classes of 'type', on the other hand, shed absolutely no light whatsover on this spiritually important matter regarding how everyday neurotic tendencies can be transformed into 'enlightened' qualities! The theoretical 'infrastructure' on which it is based, however - the Jungian 'four function theory'- is EXTREMELY helpful in providing us with the concepts necessary for describing the fundamental dimensions of what it is to 'be' human. It gives us the concepts with which to begin to explain the relationship between the spiritual, material, conceptual, and empirical realms of experience in a way that complements what is learned from the Enneagram.
The methodology out of which your model arises lends itself to seeing the individual's progress in terms of a movement from a 'defended' stance vis-a-vis the world toward being more in touch with what you call 'core self'. And you conceive of this as entailing a parallel movement in the individual, as he or she progresses, from the issues with which the Enneagram deals to the issues with which the MBTI deals. I understand the approach you are taking. But the metholodology out of which I have constructed my understanding of these matters inclines me to think of individual progess as a matter of moving from everyday 'type' (as defined by the MBTI) toward a higher form of spiritual 'self-actualization' by recognizing the 'enlightened' qualities buried within the 'neurotic' tendencies typically associated with Enneagram type. I see this as entailing a movement from the mundane personality-issues with which the MBTI deals toward a more advanced spiritual state, as is described by a more sophisticated understanding of the Enneagram which is supplemented by a 'Jungian' appreciation for the kinds of relationship that can pertain between states of 'pure consciousness' (with which advanced forms of iNtuition put us in touch), and the three remaining dimensions of human experience - the affective, the conceptual, and the empirical.
Much more can be said about these matters, but I will end here, in the sincere hope that we can find a way of exploring our different perspectives in greater detail. This would surely be helpful to others, as you suggest. Like you, I look forward to a future time
in which when we can share a face-to-face dialogue on these and related matters.
The attachment that I enclose is in response to the chart that you sent. In it I pose some questions about the design and use of such charts. I am attempting to understand your model, and for me one way to do that is to subject it to the kind of detailed scrutiny described above. I hope you will receive this piece in the friendly spirit in which it is intended.
Respectfully,
John Fudjack
Attachment -
I am not familiar with the specific lists that you are using. Might I ask where you
got the list of 'traits' associated with the MBTI types, and the list associated with the Enneagram types? Do you consider these lists exhaustive, or just suggestive, a kind of 'impressionistic' portrait of the Enneagram or MBTI Type in question? Do you think that these lists succeed in capturing the 'essence' of what it is to be that Type?
I am curious about some of the specific entries in your lists. You characterize
the INFJ as a 'listener', for example. But whereas the INFP is often described as a listener (in whom 'still waters run deep', according to Jung), and one who 'leads from behind the scenes', the INFJ is often described as being so much of a talker that he/she is sometimes mistakenly taken for an extrovert. The INFJ is also comparatively 'directive'
(due to 'J-ness), and thus less content than the INFP with a communication role that exclusively passive.
I am also not sure of what you mean by saying that the INFJ is 'not good at politics' - as they are often described as being good at politically rallying others around progressive visions for social change. Or why you characterize them as 'prefering measurable goals' (which seems to be a preference more associated with SJ types). There are also 'traits' mentioned in the E3 list that give me pause. For instance, in what sense is the E3 really a 'visionary' (which is a word that implies highly developed iNtuitive skills)? I have similar concerns about a number of entries on your other charts, entries that I find questionable, though I won't go into that here.
In addition to the questions I have about whether certain traits qualify as
traits associated with the Types to which you assign them, I have questions
about some of the specific COMPARISONS these lists make between certain traits. I'm not sure why you deem some traits appearing in one list 'compatible' with certain others traits in another list. For instance, number 11 in the enlosed chart shows an entry in your INFJ list that reads: 'Hard to get to know'. And this is compared to the entry in the Enneatype Three list that reads: 'Not interested in depth, just image'. In what sense are these similar?
Or in number 12 - it seems to me that there can be quite a difference between the INFJ 'inspiring others' by presenting an appealing vision, and how the Three might 'motivate' others, especially if we are talking here about using other types of S-related reward (such as prestige, money, position, etc). In number 13, the INFJ is said to 'keep' or 'save' things, and the Three 'accumulates money, assets, and possessions'. Is this really the same thing? Whereas the former is probably the manifestation of an inferior S-function combined with J-ness, the latter is the expression of a preference for S. These do not strike me
as being 'compatible', as the former is actually more like a 'shadow' of the latter. Take also number 21 - the INFJ is listed as a 'team player', the Three as a 'team leader'. These two roles are compatible roles, perhaps, since team leaders need team players and vice versa. But, to use an analogy, because 'male' and 'female' are 'compatible' roles doesn't mean that these are SIMILAR categories.
Finally - take number 22. In what sense is 'understanding people and how they work' (attributed to the INFJ) similar to 'manipulates' (attributed to the E3)? I think i could make an argument that the former trait is 'F-based' and related to being a team-player and empathetic, whereas as the latter is 'T-based' and related to an urge to control and assert 'power-over' - not what I would call parallel traits at all, although they might constitue a 'complementary' pair in the sense described above. But if you are willing to include complementary pairs of traits in your 'compatible traits' list, the list no longer shows similarity between the INFJ and Three, but rather a relationship of 'complementary opposite' - ie, 'shadow'!
There is also something strange about the logic that allows you to use some of the
traits you cite as an entry in the 'compatible' list AND ALSO in the 'oppositional' list. How, for instance, can the presumed E3 trait, 'can compromise values', be listed as an E3 trait (item K) that is 'oppositional' to a particular INFJ trait but also be listed
(in item 14) as an E3 trait that is 'compatible' with an INFJ traits? Wouldn't this mean that the two INFJ traits are contradictory? Doesn't this undermine the consistency of that list?
Furthermore, the fact that there are some traits held in common by two diametrically opposite (ie, 'shadow') types does not mean that these are not diametrically opposite.
To use an obvious and exaggerated analogy - most INFJs and most ESTPs are 'bipeds'
and have 'sexual urges', and 'spiritual needs', and 'laugh', but this would not mean
that they are not diametrically opposite MBTI types, would it? Of most importance in determining whether two types are diametrical opposites is deciding whether the qualities that are ESSENTIAL TO THE DEFINITION OF THE RESPECTIVE TYPES are the same or opposite to each other.
For these reasons your lists do not succeed in convincing me that the E3 has very much in common with the INFJ.
I appreciate what you are trying to do with these charts. Pat and I
did something very similar in our 1996 paper on
the Enneagram and the MBTI. Descriptions of specific Ennea-types, carefully gleened
from the Enneagram literature, were compared to descriptions from Myers and Briggs and the Jungian analysts, of the MBTI types with which we associated them. In trying to discern which Enneagram types are similar to which MBTI types one can't escape comparing features mentioned in the respective type-descriptions. But we must take care not to reduce type (enneagram or mbti) to a simple LIST of traits because there are
serious pitfalls hidden in using lists of traits to accomplish this
purpose, and I would like to address this issue in the following.
Lists versus definitions
When we construct trait-lists how do we avoid creating mere 'composites', nothing more than an out-of-context conglomeration or aggregation of unrelated features? Lists are not very good at bringing out the underlying rhyme and reason that holds features together, the unique 'spirit' that underlies each Type and provides a context or framework that gives meaning to the separate features and relates them to each other.
Even when lists avoid being mere composites, they sometimes nonetheless promote
the caricaturing of personality types. This happens when distinctive features or
peculiarities associated with a given type are exaggerated or emphasized at the expense of other features within the profile. I'm afraid that this occurs more frequently in the Enneagram, as Pat and I have pointed out, because it lacks a theoretical infrastructurelike the one that Jung's 'four function' theory provides for the 16 MBTI types. It is the four-function theory that provides the framework that puts various features associated with a particular MBTI Type 'into perspective' with respect to
the remaining 15 types. The four-function theory offers a conceptual and linguistic scheme, a 'common ground' that keeps characterizations of each of the 16 MBTI Types within prescribed limits and offers a common language that enhances our capacity to make comparisons between each of the 16 Types. It is thus relatively easy to
recognize that 'meaning' and 'possibility' and 'vision' (N-related qualites)
are what play a primary role in the life of the INFJ, and that this is very different
from what is important to the ESTP, because 'S' is the dominant function in that type,
and 'S' and 'N' are defined as diametrical opposites.
It is comparatively more difficult to contrast Enneagram types with each other with
the same level of precision, because we don't have an infrastructural theory in the Enneagram that 1) directs us to those 'qualities' that are the primary variables that
need to be brought into relief, or 2) shows us precisely how those qualities are related to each other. For the same reason, it is also more difficult to compare MBTI and Enneagram types by contrasting traits associated with each than it is to compare MBTI types with one another.
Which qualities are 'central' to being an E3? Which traits in your E3 list are the
essential ones? Are those essential traits closely related to the individual's
preference for (and characteristic use of) introverted iNtuition (ie, which is the core feature of INFJness)? Are there traits in your list that a person MUST have in order to be an E3? If I have one or two the traits on the list, does that make me an E3? If not, how many do I have to have? Unless we can answer these kinds of questions, lists of traits
will remain of limited use.
Experimental psychology teaches us to look favorably on trait lists, because they
promise to make complex psychological states of affair quantifiable. But do the
lists that you are using actually fulfill that promise? I'm not so sure, for the reasons I've mentioned above. Even if it is a helpful preliminary exercise to go through, we have to ask what deficits such lists, used as an epistemological methodology,
entail. What is difficult to provide by way of a list, is a sense of underlying
'context'. Human languages, in contrast, are wonderfully suited to this purpose.
Trait-lists tend to 'flatten' our understanding of Type (Enneagram and MBTI), but
by using carefully constructed prose descriptions we can construct contexts in which
single characteristics can be considered and related in complex ways with other
significant characteristics.
Human languages are successful in doing this because they tap into the way
in which humans structure their experience. As humans we are capable of attending to one object after another in a steady stream of thoughts, feelings and perceptions, while simultaneously holding in the background of consciousness an appropriate 'context' or frame of reference capable of rendering the experience into a coherent whole.
Indeed, we are actually able to simultaneously entertain multiple levels of context - frames within frames. Every day we constantly successful in holding in mind who and
where we are when, for instance, we enter into a meeting with another person. And then we hold that relationship in mind as a subsidiary frame of reference while we enter into a discussion of some subject which, in turn, we also hold in mind as yet another smaller emmbedded frame of reference when the phone interrupts our conversation and we go to
answer it. With dexterity we manage a series of nested frames, contexts within contexts - moving back and forth from one level of the contextually structured moment to another.
Pat and I have come to believe that a more profound understanding of the MBTI Types
can indeed be achieved when the 'functional preference orders' that are uniquely associated with each MBTI type (eg, N-F-T-S for the INFJ) are associated with the specific ways
in which each MBTI type characteristically 'nests' function-related frames. Not only does the INFJ, for instance, prefer using her iNtuitive function over her Feeling function, and so forth, in the prescribed order - she will also tend to 'structure' experience by utilizing an N-based 'frame of reference' as a primary context. Within that
frame, an F-based 'frame of reference' is nested like a box within a box - and so on, until we have described what Pat and I would call an N/F/T/S 'nesting order' of the respective function-related frames. We've presented a paper on this subject in this issue of the 'The Enneagram and the MBTI - an Electronic Journal'.
This approach to Type has made Pat and I particularly sensitive to the drawbacks of 'trait lists', which are comparatively one-dimensional or 'flat' structures. What makes you and I INFJs, I'd submit, is the fact that we nest function-related frames generally in the same order and thereby 'structure' our experience in the same way. The 'bottom' line for us is usually a frame of reference that is iNtuitive. We are primarily concerned with the 'meaning' of things, with symbolism and possibility. In that widest of contexts, we permit ourselves to assume a somewhat more limited frame of reference related to the 'feeling function'. We seek relationship and interaction with others. And within that frame of reference we venture to entertain conceptual systems, in the context of which we may even seek the kind of 'empirical' information that is accompanied by an S-related frame of reference. But our S-related frames our comparatively less frequent, less developed, and at a less basic level in the heirarchy of our nested frames.
We are not iNtuitives because we use iNtuition on occasion - or even because we use it frequently, or well, or like to use it. It is because our primary frameworks are imbued with concerns that are directly related to the N-function that we are iNtuitives. By recognizing this we reduce the likelihood of mistyping individuals using the MBTI because we are less likely to perceive traits manifested by the individual out of context (ie, apart from the heirarchically nested contexts with which individuals characteristically structure their experience). We become less prone to mistakenly attribute undue significance to a particular word or behavior manifest by the individual we are trying to type by focusing on the whole person and how he or she typically structures experience with respect to the four dimensions of reality - the spiritual, affective, cognitive, and perceptual.
|
